War without American leadership

European NATO is less than the sum of its parts

We are in the midst of a crisis, one that could define our lives for decades to come.

Since the end of the Second World War, Europe has relied on the United States to guarantee our security through a strong military alliance. This alliance has mainly been directed against the Soviet Union, first, and then, after 1990, against Russia. It has been highly effective in preventing an external power from conquering or re-conquering free, democratic Europe.

That security guarantee is now on the verge of collapse. Not because Russia, whose war against Ukraine is reaching its third year, is some overwhelming, unstoppable force, but because Washington is preparing to give up without firing a single shot.

Last week the US government indicated that they were ready to deny Ukraine entry into NATO, argued that Ukraine should be preparing to give up territory to the Russians and that the US itself would have no military presence in Ukraine after the war. This vision of a neutered Ukraine, robbed of key land and economic resources and without a sufficient military deterrent, is exactly what Moscow wants. Like Munich 1938, far from the peace being promised, a deal on these terms would be the opening act of the next war.

To top it all off, the Americans made it clear that what we in Europe thought about all this was irrelevant to them. Trump went ahead and opened negotiations with Putin on ending the war without informing any of America’s partners in Europe. And while they have suggested that Europe’s views would be ‘represented’ in peace talks, Washington has offered no guarantee that Europe would be allowed to speak for itself, merely to hope that certain US officials would do a good enough job of relaying back the European perspective. To the extent that Europe was on the minds of the US government at all, it took the form of an extended rant by the US Vice-President against our hate speech laws and in favour of working with far-right parties.

In rhetoric, Europe’s leaders have been firm: no talks about Ukraine without Ukraine, direct representation for the rest of Europe, maintain the path to NATO for Ukraine.

In practice, however, the method to implement these demands remains somewhere between vague and unfeasible. Moral pressure and persuasion may be enough to ensure that Ukraine gets to participate in most of the talks (although there is still a risk it will be undermined by Russia-US back-channels). How Europe is supposed to guarantee its own representation in peace talks is unknown. As for NATO membership, let’s be honest: if the US says no to a country joining NATO, then that country is not joining NATO, no matter what anyone else might think.

To an extent the way forward is obvious and has been widely repeated in all corners. To better secure our freedom and democracy in a world of waning US power, we must significantly re-arm and increase our defence spending. The problem is that this by itself may not be enough.

Certainly it wouldn’t hurt for Europe to have more soldiers, more tanks, more jets in order to deter Russian aggression and, if necessary, hold off another all-out offensive by Moscow. The American withdrawal must be compensated somehow.

But America’s contribution to European security is much more than just men and equipment. During NATO’s time, the US has been the essential glue holding its members together and allowing them to seamlessly conduct joint operations. Washington contributes essential support like air-to-air refuelling, airlift capabilities, satellite data and other intelligence that is not matched by European states. Critically, they provide the leadership and command structure of the alliance. Only the US has had the military and moral power to corral the various (much smaller) European states into a single fighting force. There is a reason NATO has a position called Supreme Allied Commander Europe and there is a reason it has always been an American.

European NATO is not just NATO without American soldiers. It is a building whose structural supports have been knocked out. It is less than the sum of its parts. It is not, today, a viable alternative defence alliance.

So while European leaders and the media are starting to reckon with what it means to fight a large scale war without the American army, they are still not considering how we can fight such a war without American leadership.

For the past 80 years, Europe’s freedom has been secured by nothing less than a continental army. That this army was American allowed us to obscure that reality and pretend that all we were relying on was a good old-fashioned alliance of nation-states. But without the American Supreme Allied Commander to call the shots, who will make the key decisions in a European war against Russia, who will coordinate the forces and manage the direction of the conflict? Will a Brit be put in charge, or a Frenchman or a Pole? Will we require a multi-member council as our military executive? Or will this devolve into a collection of mini-militaries as each runs itself according to its national structures, imperfectly cooperating as best as possible?

As much as European tanks and jets, what we need is a European system of command. It is a debate we have long dismissed as a distraction or unhelpful, largely because it is controversial and has no easy answers. But that unwillingness to look the problem in the eye is why we now risk having no backup defence plan in the event of American withdrawal.

This is not a call for the EU to create an army. Although some aspects of military integration (certainly industry) will run best through the EU, it does not have a real executive and as such offers no particular benefit in running an army. It is a call for bold thinking and far-sighted leadership in constructing a new continental defence for Europe. This may require an entirely new defence treaty, which some EU members may not wish to join, and which would benefit from the inclusion of some non-EU members. Whatever form it takes, the primary mission of this project would be to establish the command, logistics and support elements that Europe would need to fully harness its combined power and fight a war as a single unit.

To put it another way, Europe’s leaders must answer an essential question: if Supreme Allied Commander Europe is no longer American, who are they?